Professional Documents
Culture Documents
James S. Murray, Etc. v. United States, 292 F.2d 602, 1st Cir. (1961)
James S. Murray, Etc. v. United States, 292 F.2d 602, 1st Cir. (1961)
2d 602
This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts entered for the defendant, the United States of
America. Plaintiff-appellant, James S. Murray, individually and as executor of
the estate of Elsie Murray,1 sued to recover a refund in the amount of
$15,725.06 paid by plaintiff as income tax of $8,897.55 and interest of
$6,827.51 for the calendar years 1943 to 1951 inclusive or other years.
payment of an additional assessment for the calendar year 1947. The balance
was entered on the records of the District Director of Internal Revenue as a
credit (sic) and payment on 1943 although no such amount was owed by
plaintiff on taxes for that year. On August 3, 1951 an additional assessment for
the calendar year 1947 was made against plaintiff. On October 31, 1951
plaintiff paid by check $2,500 from which was deducted interest of $373.05,
leaving a balance of $2,126.95. This amount was applied on the records of the
District Director to the tax year 1945, although at the time the records revealed
that 1945 was paid in full. A refund for the year 1948 of $481.03 was paid to
the District Director's office on May 13, 1952. This amount also was applied on
the records to the tax year 1945 although, again, no amount was then due for
that year.
3
On February 20, 1953 the total amount of $8,897.55 was transferred by the
Internal Revenue Service from the account of plaintiff to the account of his
sister-in-law, Margaret Murray. On May 10, 1957 the plaintiff paid $8,897.55
in tax plus interest of $6,827.51. The total amount of $15,725.06 was applied to
fully pay the amounts plaintiff owed on the additional assessments for 1947
and 1948. On June 3, 1957 plaintiff filed with the District Director his duly
executed claim for refund, afterward amended. The amended claims for refund
were rejected in full by the Internal Revenue Service on May 14, 1959.
Thereafter this action was instituted.
The issue before the district court was whether or not the transfer of credit to
the account of Margaret Murray was made with the plaintiff's consent. The
district court placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove that he did not consent
to the transfer and concluded on the evidence before it that plaintiff had
consented to the transfer.
Plaintiff makes various contentions that the evidence does not support a
conclusion that plaintiff consented to the transfer and that such consent must be
in writing and in regard to an actual balance in the taxpayer's favor.
We have found no case which requires that the consent to such a transfer be in
10
11
Judgment will be entered vacating the judgment of the district court and
remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes:
1
Elsie Murray, the wife of James S. Murray, is apparently involved only because
joint returns were filed for various years. The activities of James S. Murray are
the crucial ones, and the term plaintiff is used to refer to him